Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
It is a section from the Catechism of the Catholic Church.By the way, what is this document, you referred to as "A little catechesis" I. Freedom and Responsibility? Who wrote it? What position does it hold in Catholic writings? Just some Catholic's thoughts? How important is it?
I do know that is the stance of many Protestants. I am a Catholic and I do receive Sirach as inspired holy scripture so I use it as I use all the holy scriptures to teach the truth.I suppose you know I don't attribute authority to Sirach as canon nor as by 'plenary verbal inspiration". It is not God's Word. It is man's thinking.
Fair enough. I will accept it as something you submit to as your authority, then, but, sorry. Not mine. And, it does make a difference as to our category of argument. Not the same, thing, of course, but it is like when I argue with many liberals who don't accept the Word of God as authoritative, but just (more or less) inspirational. We have argument from sources "NOT in common". Makes it difficult, or at least, it relegates us argue either to what is in common, or to logic, intuition and good sense.I do know that is the stance of many Protestants. I am a Catholic and I do receive Sirach as inspired holy scripture so I use it as I use all the holy scriptures to teach the truth.
That perspective, kind sir, is rather similar to how I see your view on Sirach. It makes for an interesting dynamic, I think. To me, your religion is quite humanistic and liberal because, in part, it took a turn in the 16th century (or some time after if you're not from one of the denominations that arose in that century) away from God's revealed truth.it is like when I argue with many liberals who don't accept the Word of God as authoritative, but just (more or less) inspirational
FWIW, I didn't come to it by way of anyone's teaching it to me. Only the very basic (Omnipotence, creator of all things, the Gospel and all its peripherals, that I got from my childhood, I still hold. The rest, no. So I don't care what happened at the 16th century.That perspective, kind sir, is rather similar to how I see your view on Sirach. It makes for an interesting dynamic, I think. To me, your religion is quite humanistic and liberal because, in part, it took a turn in the 16th century (or some time after if you're not from one of the denominations that arose in that century) away from God's revealed truth.
I apologise if my comment was hurtful. It was not intended to be.FWIW, I didn't come to it by way of anyone's teaching it to me. Only the very basic (Omnipotence, creator of all things, the Gospel and all its peripherals, that I got from my childhood, I still hold. The rest, no. So I don't care what happened at the 16th century.
What I found, I found from Bible reading, Bible study, hard experience, agonized prayer, common sense, and plain need, and the desire to understand.
No, not hurtful.I apologise if my comment was hurtful. It was not intended to be.
In the same spirit I offer this question. Was the bible of your youth, of your study, and of the agonising prayers one with sixty six books in it?
By having a sixty six book bible you were already being indoctrinated into Protestant views to a degree. Just as you would have been indoctrinated into Catholic views to a degree had you had a seventy three book bible. The process started early.No, not hurtful.
Yes. And I memorized a lot of it when I was a child, KJV. Since then I use many different versions, though I shy away from several, like the paraphrases. When I have questions on any one subject, I look to many versions and the interlinear both Nestle and Wescott-Hort for my studies.
Of course. I don't deny Protestant indoctrination, and particularly 'arminianistic' 'westleyanistic' Dispensational Fundamentalist indoctrination. But we depended on no catechism nor do I even now submit to any.By having a sixty six book bible you were already being indoctrinated into Protestant views to a degree. Just as you would have been indoctrinated into Catholic views to a degree had you had a seventy three book bible. The process started early.
Is that because you perceive yourself as an independent person, free to interpret scripture according to your wits? Therefore you'll have no catechism lord it over your faith, no man, no church, no human system will stand between you and God, is that the thinking behind the statement, "But we depended on no catechism nor do I even now submit to any."Of course. I don't deny Protestant indoctrination, and particularly 'arminianistic' 'westleyanistic' Dispensational Fundamentalist indoctrination. But we depended on no catechism nor do I even now submit to any.
There is a LOT of stuff to make me back up when I head down a trail of thought. And I use many things to help me think. One strong one is simple Orthodoxy, by which I more or less mean Protestant Orthodoxy, and for sure, none of it that I find denies anything in Scripture. Scripture is my authority even beyond subjective "urges" I might otherwise take for "promptings" of the Spirit of God within me. I think I am very skeptical of myself. I don't want to be the one that "changes opinions in mid-paragraph without losing any vehemence".Is that because you perceive yourself as an independent person, free to interpret scripture according to your wits? Therefore you'll have no catechism lord it over your faith, no man, no church, no human system will stand between you and God, is that the thinking behind the statement, "But we depended on no catechism nor do I even now submit to any."
Scripture alone binds the conscience, is that how it is for you?they don't own my conscience
Not exactly. God can (and does) whatever he pleases with me, but I can't entirely trust myself, nor anyone nor anything else subjective.Scripture alone binds the conscience, is that how it is for you?
I type those words with some fondness. I remember saying them, long ago, to a committee of Presbyterian ministers in a small denomination. That was after remarking to them that Christ's resurrection as a man (glorified) was the one assurance that humanity had that human nature can be redeemed and elevated and become a sharer of the divine nature. ... this morning is laced with old memories for me
what brought you to such caution with others?Not exactly. God can (and does) whatever he pleases with me, but I can't entirely trust myself, nor anyone nor anything else subjective.
The false worldview in which I was brought up. Betrayed me.what brought you to such caution with others?
"the 4 spiritual laws" sort of "wonderful plan for your life"?The false worldview in which I was brought up. Betrayed me.
As you may have heard others say, it wasn't God who did me wrong nor lied to me. It was believers. Took me years to realize they were just trying to figure it out too, and pretending to have it together.
Ha! I remember asking one guy, once I began to realize all this, "Would you tell Hosea that God has a wonderful plan for his marriage?"
"Well, that was an exception!"
"Well, Jack, we are ALL exceptions! God owes us nothing."
To me, the biggest lie of all that I was taught, is the self-deterministic mindset; the notion that we are individuals on some sort of level with God as sentient intelligent beings —that he has his part to do, and we have ours, and that, at least theoretically, we can somehow measure up, and this is called maturity, where we can impress God and he owes us something, (if only gratefulness), for our achievement. Yeah, sorry, a bit sarcastic there.
Something like that."the 4 spiritual laws" sort of "wonderful plan for your life"?
Indeed. Nor am I fond of innovations.Something like that.
Haha, you may have picked up by now that I don't much care for what I call, "Innovative Christianity".
I did dearly want to press you on the some of the other things you said in this message but I felt checked to go in a different direction but first Jesus and the Father are one Joh 1:10 and if ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him (Joh 14:7) So as Jesus certainly'wanted' things in the plain meaning of the word e.g He wanted not to have the trauma of His crucifixion if at all possible, then I can assume God wants in the same way??To me it is monstrous that anyone would think, not only that God 'wanting' is like our wanting, but that anyone can frustrate his choice.
1. John 12:48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last dayWe've already been through 1 Timothy 2:4. Your logic depending on your use of it, is useless to convince me of anything.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?